Re: Cancellation forwarding protocol (was Re: Reliability of RPC services)

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Jonathan S. Shapiro dies 27/04/2006 hora 05:18:
> > But I'm not sure it is what I want. In fact, now I'm pretty sure
> > it's not. To just block subsequent replies is needed upon
> > completion, but for cancellation forwarding you need a bit more.
> Can you say why you believe this? I think there is a hidden assumption
> here that may be mistaken.

My assumption, confirmed by what you say just below, is that the check
you're suggesting needs to invoke the capability to the FCRB, thus
needing to page it in, and the owner of the FCRB then to process the
incoming activation.

> From the perspective of the invoker, there is no difference in
> behavior between invoking a Null cap and invoking a cap with a
> non-matching payload.

But section 6.1 describes the invocation of a FCRB sender's capability,
and it seems to always lead to a delivery.

So how do you intend the watchdog to perform the test? And how the
client is supposed to discriminate between the test and the actual
answer?

Doubtfully,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature